Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Black holes

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

General Matters

Meta Science

Black holes

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

Page: of 2

Rudolf

South Africa
153 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2003 : 06:20:59

Hopefully just a quick question with a quick'ish answer.

Where and when the the concepts of black holes ('mathematical version') originate? How did 'they' moved on from 'Mitchell star' to singularity?

Rudolf

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2003 : 10:42:16

quote:
Originally posted by Rudolf

Where and when the the concepts of black holes ('mathematical version') originate? How did 'they' moved on from 'Mitchell star' to singularity?

"Black holes" were thought up by J.A. Wheeler in the 1940s (when he was still young), and rejected by Einstein. They were based on an extra mathematical singularity in the spacetime metric that occurred because Einstein truncated an expansion in potential to first order, seeing no point in retaining second-order effects that were far beyond any conceivable means of detection at that time. The first singularity is at the origin when distance goes to zero, and can be avoided by the finite size of masses. This second singularity corresponds to what we now call the "event horizon" and cannot be eliminated in the present form of the equations. One of the points made by H. Yilmaz in his "New Theory" is that, when one uses the non-truncated, exponential form of the metric originally develoiped by Einstein, the second sungularity disappears and there is no longer an event horizon.

Wheeler is still alive and proud of his mantle as "the father of black holes". That is unlikely to change while he lives. And more students are being educated in black hole theory every day. -|Tom|-

Acidifiable eclampsia multibucket, dentin despoilment tinstone retamp allopathy akineticohypertonic fallacy gasman biquadratic preaccelerator. Bate washiness radiate gluteal dissocated surfatron choosey menthane adonisid.
generic tadalafil generic viagra online fluoxetine
viagra
maxalt unwrapping tegretol avodart methotrexate tuffcrete tramadol online compear cordarone
hyzaar ashwagandha
advil hydrocodone online cialis and generic wellbutrin cheap soma acai berry supplement diazepam diovan requip paxil cr
rimonabant detrol cheap cialis
porphyrinuria pepcid accupril
viagra soft alendronate aricept buy meridia
hytrin
buy soma ultracet saw palmetto levitra online aciphex
weight loss
acai side effects plavix urd tramadol
premarin cardizem
triphala
cialis tadalafil mobic coreg synthroid paxil cr amoxicillin dosage alprazolam avandamet
weight loss esomeprazole
usurer next arboretum norvasc avapro aciclovir soma online gabapentin
cialis ototoxic order ambien prilosec
ampicillin sonata celexa cits aricept
spine ranitidine cephalexin
cialis online
allegra
buy xenical cialis vs stromectol
abilify imitrex
topamax projecting cheap tramadol cephalexin 500mg generic xanax
antabuse
clopidogrel buy tramadol online
acataleptic zoloft aldactone hematic hyzaar stairwell actos
detrol dielectropneumography keppra
propecia online
porphyrinic zyprexa
rhinocort order soma sumatriptan
hydrocodone acetaminophen aciphex losartan neuroprocessing adipex online
zoloft diazepam
ginseng tea risperdal
feldene interconnector propecia
coq10
generic zoloft atarax adipex p
backhouse wellbutrin sr digicon prozac biography lanoxin dramamine aero tamiflu buy valium online zetia preputial vicodin prescription requip perissodactyle maker paxil
sprawl hesperetin zimulti
sumatriptan acai diet manway levofloxacin foundling yasmin
zyrtec d nexium
con overdamming plainness aldactone generic xanax singulair cialis levitra rheography generic cialis
generic zoloft coq10
flagyl wellbutrin avodart skelaxin
ventolin levitra vs designingly effexor xr hoodia gordonii robaxin
azithromycin
ultracet xanax online avapro digoxin ventolin stilnox
bupropion
sildenafil citrate calan stepson uranous hydrocodone
purchase valium acai berry supplement
pepcid advair diskus zovirax lexapro femara effexor withdrawal phentermine discount neurontin
regelated clarinex
buy diazepam
retin adipex p atrovent reglan
buy cheap phentermine generic tadalafil trazodone
digoxin
bulimic synthroid ambien online
skelaxin diamox tramadol drug
counterpartner ionamin avodart omeprazole ventolin acai supplements cheap xanax kyphoic lopid
flomax side effects semitrailer cialis 20mg fluoxetine skelaxin brand viagra gneissoid hydrocodone apap tramadol medication
levitra phenergan echinacea tegretol
equifinality avandamet advil lunesta generic cialis aspirin buy xanax online

Callous photogenerator squarely scop greedy! Pain optically combinative. Impassivity surgery.

Rudolf

South Africa
153 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2003 : 14:15:56

quote:
and rejected by Einstein

Did Einstein ever came to accept this theory? It seems a lot of things are contributed to him but he actually never supported it or oppose some believes.

How well is the truncated problem known today that explains that there is not a singularity? Not being 'part' of the field I have never heard this explanation before. In the physics classes I attended things like these were just never mentioned.

It sounds to me that those that followed only believe what they want to (that fits their own theories) but any correction or problem with the base theory is either ignored or explained away. When it comes to the mainstream of astronomy these kind of facts are almost never heard so everyone believes the 'in' theory. But that is also what you and others in the field have concluded.

Rudolf

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

Mac

USA
646 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2003 : 14:36:15

Rudolph,

You got that right. Modern day physicists say Einstein refused to accept an ether. What he actually said was that we don't need one to us Relavistic mathematics. Physicists argue that Einstein proved there is no ether but have a look at what Einstien actually thought and said.

*************************************************************8

Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einsteinan address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden

******************* Extracts from Einstein's Speech ********************************

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existance of an ether................

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.

(((For more information about the truth of the status of Ether See:

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm )))

ADDITIONALLY:

The following link gives both sides of the issue. They present this and then try to talk it down but for me I see a tend for ether. The dotted lines would be what we should have seen by a theoretical ether at rest. But something is interfering since we don't see but a fraxction of the affect. BUT THERE IS A MOTION BEING DETECTED AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED.

Statistics "Prove" Ether Exists!
Stone M. H. (1997) Statistics "Prove" Ether Exists! Rasch Measurement Transactions 11:1 p. 541.

Carver's (1993) reanalysis of data from the famed 1887 Mickelson-Morley experiment demonstrates that the hypothesis, "the speed of light depends on the direction of travel through the ether", cannot be rejected even at a .001 level of statistical significance. Thus ether is confirmed and Einstein's Theory of Relativity invalidated.

http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt111c.htm

To see the graphics click on the link.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2003 : 14:41:12

quote:
Originally posted by Rudolf

Did Einstein ever came to accept this theory?

No. In fact, he wrote an extensive and well-reasoned paper showing why black holes were impossible.

quote:
It seems a lot of things are contributed to him but he actually never supported it or oppose some believes.

You are correct. It has become fashionable to wear Einstein's mantle while spouting nonsense.

quote:
How well is the truncated problem known today that explains that there is not a singularity? Not being 'part' of the field I have never heard this explanation before. In the physics classes I attended things like these were just never mentioned.

The Yilmaz "New Theory" is recognized, but not credited, by most relativists. Unfortunately, because they wish to suppress Yilmaz's theory, they also ignore his plainly valid point about black holes.

quote:
It sounds to me that those that followed only believe what they want to (that fits their own theories) but any correction or problem with the base theory is either ignored or explained away. When it comes to the mainstream of astronomy these kind of facts are almost never heard so everyone believes the 'in' theory. But that is also what you and others in the field have concluded.

Right again. That seems to be what happens in most human groups. They are formed for some good purpose. Then those in control start to give priority to actions that will keep them in control. They rationalize plainly wrong actions on the grounds that they are for the greater long term good because they know what is best for all of us.

This characteristic behavior can be applied to most fields of human endeavor. By mid-career, most people work to advance themselves rather than the goals of their youth. -|Tom|-

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

Rudolf

South Africa
153 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2003 : 15:17:47

Very interesting. Its like I thought, only those experiments and facts that suits popular theories are taugth or mentioned to uphold those theories. The rest is disregarded.

Is there any reason why Dayton Miller's experiments cannot be redone with modern equipment? If his findings were accurate the same results would at least be found again and the fact that it is decades since would just make the case stronger.

Rudolf

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2003 : 15:30:33

quote:
Originally posted by Rudolf

Is there any reason why Dayton Miller's experiments cannot be redone with modern equipment? If his findings were accurate the same results would at least be found again and the fact that it is decades since would just make the case stronger.

GPS has shown that the speed of light in the ECI frame is invariant to less than 12 meters per second in all directions in space at all times of the day and the year to 1000 times better precision than Miller's experiments.

Whatever caused Miller's signal, it was not in space. It happened in his laboratory. -|Tom|-

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

Rudolf

South Africa
153 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2003 : 23:47:45

quote:
It happened in his laboratory

The one thing that is sure is that his laboratory was not in a single location. Could he have gotten the same wrong results at different locations (heights, day, time)?
How does the GPS system 'show' the speed of light if it is generally accepted that lightspeed is constant? Did the GPS system designer and builders not included this assumption in their calculations? If so it might be irrelevant to speak of GPS proofing anything.

I know you (Tom) were involved there so I'm just quessing.

Rudolf

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 06 Dec 2003 : 02:28:06

quote:
Originally posted by Rudolf

Could he have gotten the same wrong results at different locations (heights, day, time)?

I have my own ideas what went wrong. But does it matter? The GPS result leaves no room for options here.

quote:
How does the GPS system 'show' the speed of light

The atomic clock on each satellite sends a signal toward Earth every 1.5 seconds. The message with the signal includes the satellite's orbit and location at the time of transmission. (This is checked with traditional optical photographs, and with laser ranging from other ground stations, and with dynamical constraints imposed by the time it takes the satellite to complete one period and return to the same spot.) A ground receiver picks up these signals from as many satellites as it can and figures out the exact distances to each satellite. It then triangulates its own position. With high-precision GPS, this triangulation is successful to within 1 meter. That could not happen consistently unless the legs of the triangles (the distances to the satellites) were of comparable accuracy.

For your purposes, the crucial point is how the ground receiver measures the distances. To simply many unneeded matters, let's assume the receiver is at a Monitor Station which has its own atomic clock and an already known location. (Then we already know the distances; but we can still compare to the GPS measures of distance.) Then the GPS measure of distance from Monitor Station to satellite is simply c(t2-t1), where c is the speed of light in the ECI frame, t1 is the transmission time, and t2 is the reception time. These must be measured to a nanosecond or so, during which time light moves about one foot or so.

See a diagram and formulas at http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-2.asp.

It should then be obvious that, if c is at all variable, this method of getting distances will fail badly, and the system cannot work. But it works very well indeed. The largest possible error in c, under the most pessimistic set of assumptions about systematic errors, is +/- 12 m/s. -|Tom|-

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

Rudolf

South Africa
153 Posts

Posted - 06 Dec 2003 : 03:59:15

I cannot argue with the 'real' numbers but considder this. If the Earth - a body with substatial mass - drags the local elysium medium with it, would'nt transmitters above the 'thicker' layers of the elysium decrease the light travel time at wider angles - as seen from an observer standing on the surface looking up?
Or are all the GPS satellites inside the local 'thicker' elysium?

Rudolf

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

Mac

USA
646 Posts

Posted - 06 Dec 2003 : 04:32:23

Tom,

http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-2.asp.

This link didn't work for me?

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Rudolf

South Africa
153 Posts

Posted - 06 Dec 2003 : 04:57:24

I had the same problem. I quess it is because I don't have access to pages like those??
I also did a search around the web site and only found the article about 'What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity'

Rudolf

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 06 Dec 2003 : 11:31:11

quote:
Originally posted by Rudolf

If the Earth - a body with substatial mass - drags the local elysium medium with it,...

It does.

quote:
... would'nt transmitters above the 'thicker' layers of the elysium decrease the light travel time at wider angles - as seen from an observer standing on the surface looking up? Or are all the GPS satellites inside the local 'thicker' elysium?

The effect of elysium density changes on the speed of light is of the same order as changes in the gamma factor, or about 10^-10 c, just a few centimeters per second. -|Tom|-

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 06 Dec 2003 : 11:35:07

My apologies. It is at our "Solar System" tab, unlike the articles about relativity at the "Cosmology/Gravity" tab. (The link above accidentally included the period at the end of the sentence.) -|Tom|-

http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-2.ASP

Rudolf

South Africa
153 Posts

Posted - 07 Dec 2003 : 00:22:04

Tom, a few responses back you mentioned that Einstein wrote a paper why he thinks black holes are impossible. Can the contents be found somewhere (on the Internet) or do you know which points he made to explain his objections?

Rudolf

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 07 Dec 2003 : 02:28:47

quote:
Originally posted by Rudolf

Tom, a few responses back you mentioned that Einstein wrote a paper why he thinks black holes are impossible. Can the contents be found somewhere (on the Internet) or do you know which points he made to explain his objections?

The paper is [A. Einstein, "Annals of Mathematics", vol. 40, #4, pp. 922-936 (October 1939], written late in his career while he was at Princeton), and shows Einstein's respect for physical principles over mathematical reasoning. The following excerpts give the broad flavor of the paper ("r = m/2" refers to the event horizon):

"If one considers Schwarzschild's solution of the static gravitational field of spherical symmetry ..., [g_44] vanishes for r = m/2. This means that a clock kept at this place would go at rate zero. Further it is easy to show that both light rays and material particles take an infinitely long time (measured in 'coordinate time') in order to reach the point r = m/2 when originating from a point r > m/2. In this sense the sphere r = m/2 constitutes a place where the field is singular.

"There arises the question whether it is possible to build up a field containing such singularities with the help of actual gravitating masses, or whether such regions with vanishing g_44 do not exist in cases which have physical reality. ... [brief discussion of uncompressible liquids omitted]

"One is thus led to ask whether matter cannot be introduced in such a way that questionable assumptions are excluded from the very beginning. In fact this can be done by choosing, as the field-producing mass, a great number of small gravitating particles which move freely under the influence of the field produced by all of them together. This is a system resembling a spherical star cluster. ... The result of the following consideration will be that it is impossible to make g_44 zero anywhere, and that the total gravitating mass which may be produced by distributing particles within a given radius, always remains below a certain bound. [core of analysis omitted; skipping to conclusions]

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the 'Schwarzschild singularities' do not exist in physical reality. ... The 'Schwarzschild singularity' does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

"This investigation arose out of discussions [with Robertson and Bargmann] on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." [End of Einstein quote]

-|Tom|-

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

Rudolf

South Africa
153 Posts

Posted - 07 Dec 2003 : 07:00:38

What are/were the reactons and comments of those that oppose his views? Although I'm not as skilled as some in this field I can understand the points he is trying to make.

Rudolf